2020 Presidential Election

[CameronBornAndBred]

Too bad. Chris Wallace probably did the best job of any moderator in the presidential debates.

Expect the RNC to bar CNN in reply if there are any Republican debates.

Per the last line of that article, they banned NBC in 2015. FOX is bemoaning the loss of Wallace, but I think the DNC has a legitimate argument. It is unfortunate that "news" has become so partisan that this is becoming a practice utilized by either side.

[Acymetric]

Too bad. Chris Wallace probably did the best job of any moderator in the presidential debates.

Expect the RNC to bar CNN in response if there are any Republican debates.

Given that the RNC has merged with the trump campaign, would they even sponsor a debate with a challenger? I'm unclear how that would work.

[OldPhiKap]

Given that the RNC has merged with the trump campaign, would they even sponsor a debate with a challenger? I'm unclear how that would work.

True, especially given how the Trump Administration has absorbed Fox employees/"talent" past and present.

Maybe they'd just hold it in Rupert Murdoch's basement, and let Sean Hannity edit it for release?

[dudog84]

I'm going to be a bit tongue in cheek here and not a deep analysis...

Why would the public (or more specifically the democratic primary voters) clamor for a HRC campaign when she was the one person in America who could (and did) lose to Trump? Isn't HRC almost singularly responsible for Trump winning?

Nyet.

Goshdarnit! I was going to say VVP (Putin) but gus had a MUCH better response.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Sherrod Brown has elected to remain focused on his duties in the Senate.

[OldPhiKap]

Sherrod Brown has elected to remain focused on his duties in the Senate.

The centrist men that would have battled Uncle Joe are all bowing out. Per story this morning, Joe's folks have been telling potential competitors that he is likely to run and things are falling into place -- all except that Joe has not made the final decision to actually do it.

Gonna be a big hole if he doesn't at this point, it seems. But the party may have moved to the left so far that a moderate is a long shot these days anyway -- who knows.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The centrist men that would have battled Uncle Joe are all bowing out. Per story this morning, Joe's folks have been telling potential competitors that he is likely to run and things are falling into place -- all except that Joe has not made the final decision to actually do it.

Gonna be a big hole if he doesn't at this point, it seems. But the party may have moved to the left so far that a moderate is a long shot these days anyway -- who knows.

I imagine that if Biden runs, Obama is going to be more of a presence than he would be with another candidate in the primaries. If he doesn't run, I could see Obama staying to the sidelines until the convention.

How about Biden/Obama on the ticket? (Michelle, not Barack. )

[Highlander]

I imagine that if Biden runs, Obama is going to be more of a presence than he would be with another candidate in the primaries. If he doesn't run, I could see Obama staying to the sidelines until the convention.

How about Biden/Obama on the ticket? (Michelle, not Barack. )

In all seriousness, I have wondered about Obama as a potential VP pick. He has incredible experience, is still very popular with moderates and the base, a great campaigner, etc. Hard to beat having a former president as your backup/confidante.

Now, I don't think it's at all likely b/c the VP slot doesn't mean much, especially not to a guy who was president for 8 years. And the Dems lose a golden opportunity to showcase an up and coming candidate. But it's an intriguing idea.

[gus]

In all seriousness, I have wondered about Obama as a potential VP pick. He has incredible experience, is still very popular with moderates and the base, a great campaigner, etc. Hard to beat having a former president as your backup/confidante.

Now, I don't think it's at all likely b/c the VP slot doesn't mean much, especially not to a guy who was president for 8 years. And the Dems lose a golden opportunity to showcase an up and coming candidate. But it's an intriguing idea.

Cameron was referring to Michele Obama, not Barack Obama.

I recall Bill Clinton, several years ago, making the (I hope) academic argument that he could be vice president, but I think it's a stretch.

The 12th Amendment states no person who is "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" is eligible for the vice presidency.

The 22nd amendment does not allow a person who has been elected twice (or elected once if he or she served more than 2 years of a term someone else was elected to) to be elected president. IIRC his argument hinged around the "elected" language construction.

[Acymetric]

Cameron was referring to Michele Obama, not Barack Obama.

I recall Bill Clinton, several years ago, making the (I hope) academic argument that he could be vice president, but I think it's a stretch.

The 12th Amendment states no person who is "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" is eligible for the vice presidency.

The 22nd amendment does not allow a person who has been elected twice (or elected once if he or she served more than 2 years of a term someone else was elected to) to be elected president. IIRC his argument hinged around the "elected" language construction.

That is a fun technicality to debate but probably doesn't go far in court.

[Nick]

Somebody sent a warning shot to Biden:

"I do not buy the concept, popular in the '60s, which said, 'We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race,' " Biden told a Delaware-based weekly newspaper in 1975. "I don't buy that."

In language that bears on today's debate about whether descendants of slaves should be compensated, he added, "I don't feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I'll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago."

The reason I describe this as a warning shot is buried further into the article:

Biden's 1975 interview, which covered a range of topics, was conducted by a publication based in Newark, Delaware, referred to as the People Paper. It was printed in the Congressional Record at the request of Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, who praised Biden's comments, and went largely unnoticed thereafter. A Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic pointed out the original interview to The Washington Post, citing a concern that Biden's positions could be problematic for the party.

I wonder who wanted this published?

[El_Diablo]

I wonder who wanted this published?

Trump campaign.

[OldPhiKap]

Trump campaign.

Them too, but the article snip says that a Democrat brought it to the attention of the Post.

I’m not thinking that an interview from 1975 will move the needle in any meaningful way.

[Indoor66]

Them too, but the article snip says that a Democrat brought it to the attention of the Post.

I’m not thinking that an interview from 1975 will move the needle in any meaningful way.

Why not? Old yearbooks move the needle.

[Acymetric]

Them too, but the article snip says that a Democrat brought it to the attention of the Post.

I’m not thinking that an interview from 1975 will move the needle in any meaningful way.

Why not? Old yearbooks move the needle.

Yeah, we probably need to be careful here as discussing the merits of this probably starts to get PPB real quick, but there is certainly a recent trend of politicians (public figures generally, really) losing their careers or at least facing a significant outcry over things done/said decades in the past. I don't think it moves the needle on whether he runs, but I do think it hurts his electability. I'll not comment on whether it should impact his electability and encourage everyone else to be careful if they do.

[bundabergdevil]

Them too, but the article snip says that a Democrat brought it to the attention of the Post.

I’m not thinking that an interview from 1975 will move the needle in any meaningful way.

Why not? Old yearbooks move the needle.

Yeah, we probably need to be careful here as discussing the merits of this probably starts to get PPB real quick, but there is certainly a recent trend of politicians (public figures generally, really) losing their careers or at least facing a significant outcry over things done/said decades in the past. I don't think it moves the needle on whether he runs, but I do think it hurts his electability. I'll not comment on whether it should impact his electability and encourage everyone else to be careful if they do.

I have to admit, my sense of what might move the needle has been thoroughly undermined the last few years --- like I was in a blind taste test and so certain that Cup A was the ice cold Coca Cola only to have my blindfold removed and the market research say: "Nope, you just drank warm horse piss!"

Anyway, I think the electorate has a certain capacity to forgive or not pay attention to far in the past events. Opponents attempt to use them as political gotchas but they don't seem to work all that often. Robert Byrd (D-WV) served in the Senate through the mid-oughts and he started a chapter of the KKK in WV, filibustered the civil rights act, and used the N word a lot. I suppose they're useful to knock someone off message, force them to explain, equivocate, and/or apologize --- but the apology tours are well-trod territory for politicians. To Indoor's point, we actually don't YET know if the old yearbooks or alleged Duke rapes will have any impact on the Virginia politicians' electability. And, in the 2016 presidential election, the candidate transgressions that gained the most traction were recent events (deplorables, emails, Billy Bush, etc...)

I do think the Democratic party candidates are probably more susceptible to some sort of "move the needle" moments because of past actions or votes, if only because their party is the more demographically diverse of the two major parties so saying something that sways allegiances or dis-incents one sub-bloc is easier to do.

[OldPhiKap]

Why not? Old yearbooks move the needle.

I don't think his quote is in any way comparable to the old yearbook photographs of recent note. Others may of course differ in their views. Certainly in the general election, it is hard for me to picture a large pool of voters who think "Gee, I was going to vote for Biden but he was against bussing in 1975. I guess I'll vote for Trump instead."

As for the primaries, Biden's biggest problem on the race issue is likely his vote for the Crime Bill of 1994. The Democratic base is going to have to reconcile in this Age of Wokeness that many people came to Wokeness through evolution, and were not created Woke. Certainly, Middle America cares very little about Being Woke -- they mmainly want their government to work and their economic situation to move in the right direction. JMHO of course.

[Acymetric]

I have to admit, my sense of what might move the needle has been thoroughly undermined the last few years --- like I was in a blind taste test and so certain that Cup A was the ice cold Coca Cola only to have my blindfold removed and the market research say: "Nope, you just drank warm horse piss!"

Anyway, I think the electorate has a certain capacity to forgive or not pay attention to far in the past events. Opponents attempt to use them as political gotchas but they don't seem to work all that often. Robert Byrd (D-WV) served in the Senate through the mid-oughts and he started a chapter of the KKK in WV, filibustered the civil rights act, and used the N word a lot. I suppose they're useful to knock someone off message, force them to explain, equivocate, and/or apologize --- but the apology tours are well-trod territory for politicians. To Indoor's point, we actually don't YET know if the old yearbooks or alleged Duke rapes will have any impact on the Virginia politicians' electability. And, in the 2016 presidential election, the candidate transgressions that gained the most traction were recent events (deplorables, emails, Billy Bush, etc...)

I do think the Democratic party candidates are probably more susceptible to some sort of "move the needle" moments because of past actions or votes, if only because their party is the more demographically diverse of the two major parties so saying something that sways allegiances or dis-incents one sub-bloc is easier to do.

These are some good points, but a) I don't think WV politics/preferences are a good barometer for national preferences, and b) I think the climate in the mid-oughts is very different than the current climate (heck, I think the climate has changed a lot just in the last 4 years or so). The other thing is that Biden has a well known penchant for putting his foot in his mouth at times, and is certainly at risk for that here if he is forced to respond in any non-scripted environment.

[bundabergdevil]

Posted this in the Robert Kraft thread but we may need to merge that one with this one.

Suspect this moves the meme needle but that's about it...

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Posted this in the Robert Kraft thread but we may need to merge that one with this one.

Suspect this moves the meme needle but that's about it...

And to merge it with the theme of some of the preceding posts, something like this would potentially be disqualifying for one of the Democratic candidates, but for Trump it is just added to the list or attributed to conspiracy theories. I keep coming back to his shooting someone on 5th Avenue quote...